Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.

Ex Input:
Possible Duplicate: Should I say 'Your order is now complete' or 'Your order is now completed'? What is better, 'complete' or 'completed'? I want to know which sounds the most encouraging. Which of these two promotes more of an elation or satisfaction of accomplishment. Personally I'm leaning towards 'completed' as the 'd' suffix bring a more substantial and abrupt ending, which to me more clearly signifies the significance of the accomplished item.

Ex Output:
Complete, unlike completed, implies something whole or full. Completed means finished, accomplished, or done. A lot of the meaning overlaps, but I think completed gives a better sense of accomplishment, though it really depends on how you're using it.


Ex Input:
A friend posed the following word puzzle to me: Can you think of a sentence that keeps the same meaning whether you use 'it's' or 'its'? He asserted that this puzzle does in fact have a solution. However, it has me completely stumped. I tried to solve an easier problem, to find a sentence which is still grammatical if you change an 'its' to 'it's', but all I could come up with is examples like 'It's light!' (which is, strictly, more of a sentence fragment). What is the solution to the word puzzle? Or, is there some way I can 'prove' that the puzzle should have no solution?.

Ex Output:
I gather from previous answers that there are two ways in which this question can goeither we interpret it strictly, and don't make assumptions about what it's asking, or we interpret it loosely. If we interpret it loosely, we can bend the rules a bit: As in the Hans Adler's answer, which I was picking on earlier, we can interpret 'same meaning' more loosely. In this case, the solution works well (and I'm sure there are more that work even better) wherein one sentence indicates that you see the tree's apples, and one indicates you see that the fruit which the tree bears is the apple. We can also use a construction (I took this idea from another answer) like: 'I cannot comprehend it's red.' = 'I cannot comprehend its red.' A sneaky solution can be to put 'its' and 'it's' in quotes in the sentence, to come up with something like: 'I wrote a sentence with 'it's' and 'its' in it.' = 'I wrote a sentence with 'its' and 'it's' in it.' We can spell something incorrectly, as Hans Adler ironically points out in the most downvoted answer. Or, as my girlfriend suggested, we can replace the 'it' in the contraction 'it's' with a proper noun (like that clever guy Stephen King did), making 'it's' refer to something that belongs to someone or something named It. In this case the solution becomes again trivial, since 'its' is also a possessive. 'This clown is named It. It's nose is red.' = 'This clown is named It. Its nose is red' (we sadly, in the last case, refer to a clown as an object, but it does have the same meaning) Alternatively All of these answers, to me, are trivial and make the puzzle somewhat boring. If we don't want the puzzle to be boring, we can't cut corners. In this case, as a few have pointed out, it is most likely impossible.


Ex Input:
I'm referring to the peculiar habit I sometimes see in formal documents, where a number is given numerically after it's spelled out. It seems quite redundant: I need five (5) kumquats, stat! (Though it isn't always in a legal context, might it be related to this answer on this question?).

Ex Output:

The redundancy is presumably intended to reduce typos, forgery, and other types of error or manipulation in order to make the intent as clear as possible. It is known professionally as a CYA. It's obvious what my intent is when I rather carelessly write an I.O.U. for sevum kumquats, but alas, sevum is not really a word and opens up our contract to litigation. Adding the numeral 7 in parenthesis after sevum clarifies the intent. Similarly, if I were to write an I.O.U. for 3 kumquats, one could easily change that 3 to an 8, but it is far more difficult to make three look like eight. The practice appears to be a legal tradition rather than a universally honored rule. If you've ever written a check (known as a cheque to the Queen), you've written out a number with words and followed it with a numeral (albeit without parenthesis).


